Subversive Ruminations

Right: it’s Camille Paglia again, this newsletter’s favorite leftist Lesbian. Paglia long ago broke the mold, telling Steinem’s wretched FemiNazis what they needed to hear, and she carries on today with some of the most intelligent and insightful commentary available. She’s not always correct (who is?), but she’s always incisive and utterly indispensable. Her latest remarks are a rich source of quotes, some of which follow.

On The One’s choice for secretary of state, Paglia suggests flatly that the Clintons blackmailed the president-elect (headline: “What do the Clintons have on Obama?”), and then goes on to explain why that has to be the reason for the goofy appointment:

Awarding such a prize plum to Hillary may be a sop to her aggrieved fan base, but what exactly are her credentials for that position? Aside from being a mediocre senator (who, contrary to press reports, did very little for upstate New York), Hillary has a poor track record as both a negotiator and a manager. And of course both Clintons constantly view the world through the milky lens of their own self-interest.

The lady does not flinch, does she? Sure, the Clintons have few if any scruples, but…when Paglia asks what they have on Obama, she also suggests that Obama is culpable and vulnerable. That would be terrible. We went through that with J. Edgar Hoover, organized crime’s best friend, and we don’t need it again. Perhaps Paglia exaggerates, and it is definitely appropriate to hope she is wrong.

Next she notes the journalists’ distortion of the Mumbai massacre:

I was troubled by a persistent soft-pedaling of the identification of the attackers as Muslims — as if the mere reporting of that fact would be offensive and politically incorrect.

That’s interesting…because Paglia has no qualms about accusing the Clintons of (probably) blackmailing Obama, but withdraws discreetly at the thought of an anti-Western press. She should reconsider. Yes, Camille, the obvious is what it appears to be, for it is political correctness you discern! Now look again, please, and perhaps the malignant impact of multiculturalism and postmodernism will be revealed to you.

Because seven years have passed since 9/11 without another attack on native soil, many Americans, particularly urban professionals, seem to have been lulled into a false feeling of security. But jihadism as a world movement — even if its membership is a tiny fraction of young Muslim men — will continue to pose a serious threat to every open democratic society over the next century and more.

Why have Muslim organizations, very quick to protest insulting cartoons, been mostly silent about the atrocities in Mumbai?

Why, indeed. Well, this newsletter is pleased to explain. The Muslim silence, Camille, is due to the fact that Islam is Islam. Yes, in spite of all the bloodshed between sects thereof, in spite of all the doctrinal distinctions, and in spite of all the millions who are nominal Muslims, there is solidarity of a sort when it comes to dealing with infidel Westerners. Even the Sunnis who hate and kill Shias for being Shias know that the infidel is the ultimate enemy.

The Iranian strongman proclaims a fatwah on author Rushdie, and not a single Muslim in the world objects. Further, any nation that harbors a significant minority of Muslims is therefore at risk, as the British have learned.

Really, Camille, you need to take another look at your Muslim neighbors. They are anything but neighborly. If they ran things, you would be stoned to death.

Finally, here’s an interesting quote:

While I oppose all American military operations and bases in the Mideast, I continue to believe that Israel, whose security is directly threatened, has every right to take preemptive military action against Iran.

She has a point, and it’s just the tip of a huge topic. Within that topic are dozens of very serious questions that have implications beyond the obvious. It’s fine to make points, and it’s important to think about them; that means we should be grateful for the fresh breeze that is Paglia, even though we may from time to time feel chilled by her notions. That’s a subject for another day.

A Few Links For Your Edification

Israel and Colombia, mentioned in the same breath? Yes, and more’s the pity, as you will see.

History, written as if the wrong people had won WW II. Disgusting. But typical of our insane postmodern age.

The current economic mess explained by a trendy leftist Nobel laureate in economics. You pretty much know what to expect, so what’s interesting here is the debunking of the nonsense.

China kicks France in the groin because France talked to the Dalai Lama. Typical. China is just plain evil.

Che the obsession. When will we outgrow this brainless fantasy?

Waxman, Freddie and Fannie. Baaa-a-aaad news.

Whew, the stench! This collection of links must be approached from upwind. Why is the news so unremittingly putrid these days? Maybe an astrologer can explain it….

It Was Inevitable: Anthropogenic Global Warming Cult Claims Victory Over The “Skeptics.” The Truth Is Once Again Otherwise

A skeptic is a person who expresses doubt about a contention. He need present no proof, nor need he refute anything; “I’m not so sure that’s right” makes him a skeptic.

Be clear about this: the dispute over whether mankind causes or can cause climate change does not involve skeptics on either side. There is evidence on both sides, and the proponents of AGW face not just doubters, but scientists who have proof that evidence of AGW is faulty. Some of the AGW claims are hoaxes, such as the hockey stick graph and Al Gore’s deceitful film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The rest of the AGW presentation is refuted by incontrovertible facts, as this newsletter has shown.

Skeptics are not involved here. This is science versus junk science.

Now, in an effort to discredit the genuine science, AGW proponents (who constitute a kind of cult) are saying things like this (found here):

“The skeptics are doing a good job because they are making us present ironclad proof,” said Lawrence E. Buja, a climate change researcher for the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

And what do the AGW promoters plan to do to save the earth? This will shock you:

…imitating the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption by spreading sulfur in the atmosphere, or scattering billions of tiny refractors high in the air to dim the sun and lower the temperature.

The educated fool making these proposals is one Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, no less. Having delivered himself of a pair of stunningly stupid suggestions, he has just enough common sense to add, “How are you going to go up and find all those little refractors and pull them down if something bad starts to happen?”

Matthew 7:20.

Remember: the fuss is over the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That increase is said by the AGW cultists to be causing warming, though the fact is that the earth is in a cooling trend.

How much of this hellish carbon dioxide is in the air? To repeat a point that is ignored by the AGW lunatics, carbon dioxide that results from all human activity makes up approximately two one-thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere.

And: the correlation between increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and increases in overall temperature is backwards. Temperatures go up first, followed hundreds of years later by increases in carbon dioxide.

Again, the AGW loons ignore these facts. But since a cause cannot follow its effect, it is clear that carbon dioxide is not the cause of warming or cooling.

So the battle over AGW has deteriorated into a count of how many scientists are on this side and how many are on the other side. Science conducted by polling? Insanity. Fleming was right, Pasteur was right — and the rest of the world was wrong in both cases. You don’t count advocates when you do real science, you deal with facts. Facts like the amount of human-caused carbon dioxide in the air and the sequence of events that begins with warming and concludes with changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

When facts abandon you and your cause is blemished by hoaxes, you resort to counting noses. “We have a bigger team than you do, so we are right!”

When you say things like that, you have to hope the other side will not point out that the number of people opposing your anti-scientific nonsense is growing. Consider:

POZNAN, Poland – The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.


Mumbai Terror Group In The USA

The US has plenty of Muslims that constitute a genuine danger, but nobody knows exactly how many, where they all are, or what they are planning. So this story is not exactly startling news.

Perhaps the new administration will be able to beef up domestic surveillance of Muslims. After all, any president who thinks the domestic security forces should receive as much funding as the traditional military will have to be sensitive to news stories like this. And there is plenty of evidence, not all if it from the USA, that the USA has excellent reasons to be concerned about the values and plans of its Muslim residents.

Chicago: Maybe Not Such A Great Place To Be From, If You Are A Politician

Obama has tons of problems, and he sure doesn’t need Chicago’s traditionally corrupt politics nipping at his heels as he departs for Washington. Over the last few months there have been so many questions, and so few answers, that The One should consider himself lucky to have won as handily as he did — and now there are questions about how close the links were between the Chicago mayor, his bag man Rezko, and Obama.

The local newspaper has a lot to say, as one might expect; if you want a quick summary of all that, look here.

Obama says he had no contact with the mayor. Then what’s this (see .jpg attachment)?

OK, OK, he can explain it away. That’s not the point; what matters is that he has to explain it away. On top of ACORN, the fuss over Wright’s bombastic sermons, information good and bad about The One’s childhood education and citizenship and loyalties, his many conflicting statements and votes on firearms legislation, his lickspittle fawning over San Francisco’s elitist “progressives” at the expense of decent folks in the rural regions of the USA, his misleading statements on Iraq, his goofy proposal for a domestic military to secure the government against the citizenry, years of working with a terrorist and then pretending it was not so, “progressives” getting hot under the collar because he seems to have used and then cynically abandoned them, and…and…lots of other stuff, some of it pretty silly…Obama certainly does not need this new fuss.

Is he dirty? Did he expect a cut of the take?

This newsletter can’t answer definitively, but it gives Obama a pass — for now, and with qualifications. Here, at this deliberate and reliable source, you will find what appears to be the authoritative chronology of all the known facts — as well as what this newsletter considers the most rational conclusion that can be arrived at now, namely:

From the evening of Nov. 10 until yesterday, Blagojevich, Obama, and his transition team acted in ways that are consistent with a knowledge of Blagojevich’s bribery attempt and a rejection of that attempt.

Some people on The One’s team may have to be sacked, and may even go to prison. But the boss seems to be clean. Once again, he’s inarticulate and less than candid in his statements, but clean. Probably.

All right, there’s Obama’s passing grade — now for the qualifications. And they are not pretty.

Yet again, the Obama camp is behaving badly as regards free speech and a free press. This newsletter has complained in the past that the big Democrats are crudely authoritarian and censorious. Obama fits well into this group of thinly-veiled fascists (see PenPo Number 40). If the Democrats want The One to look clean, they’ll have to stop playing dirty.

But can they? Unfortunately the secretive, restrictive mindset that craves control of information seems to dominate Obama’s inner circle. These folks are trying to shape the future by silencing communication and inventing a past that did not happen. That’s a loud message that should not be ignored: we know how things will go when The One is in the Oval Office.

If you felt Nixon’s evasions and dissembling were good for the presidency, you will love what Obama does to the office.

How can the PenPo be so certain? For two excellent reasons: first, because it’s impossible to believe the president-elect is unaware of his staff’s attitude, and extraordinarily difficult to believe he does not endorse it.

Second, a review of Obama’s remarks over the last few months reveals a man who crafts his utterances with cynical expediency, dealing with immediate needs as he perceives them. The folks who work for him understand that, and are just doing their jobs.

Expect more trouble.